116th and 125th getting too large in NYC Transportation?

I've noticed this with the Second Avenue Subway and the West Side Line thought for Metro-North. Is it just me or is 116th Street and 125th Street becoming overly large in the northern Manhattan transportation base?

116th Street:

116-Columbia on the 1
116-Morningside on the B & C
116-Lenox on the 2 & 3
116-Spanish Harlem on the 4, 6 & <6>

Now to possibly add 116-Second Avenue for the Q & T. It seems more to me that having 5 stations within a short stretch is pushing it. (Yes 116 Columbia and 116 Morningside are rather far apart due to the park, but it seems ridiculous that on the East side we will have 4 stations in such a short distance of each other. Next, outside of 125th, why is 116th Street given such priority? It's not as wide as the rest, as a bonus, outside of Columbia, there's not much interesting stuff on 116th. Are we trying to turn it into a long-wind transportation hub or something to the sorts?

As for 125th Street:

125-Harlem on the 1
125-St.Nick on the A,B, C and D trains.
125-Lenox on the 2 & 3
125-Lexington on the 4, 5, 6 & <6>

The 125th Street-Harlem Metro-North station

And to bonus, the 125th Street station proposed for the WSL and the underground of the 125-Lexington for the Second Avenue Subway. Are we turning 116th and 125th into too large of streets. Yes 125th is this important street and all, but the 1811 plan did give other streets significance. Why not a 181st Street Metro-North station or 175th like the A gets for the bus terminal? I guess what I'm saying in a nutshell is "Does the MTA focus too much on certain area and needs to spread out its focus?"

I think you are really missing the point here. The building of the SAS is long overdue and all of the stations along the route are intended to draw off a good portion of riders from the crowded Lexington Line. I don't know if you've ridden the Lex, but many times, the crowds are shoved in like sardines in a can, a problem which persists for much of the run. But more generally speaking, for the lines of the NYCS, the stops are spaced relatively evenly apart for the most part, whether there is something "of interest" there or not. Perhaps people may not be flocking to these stations in Harlem for sightseeing as they might in Midtown, but Harlem is a significant community and mass-transit is a very viable option for its residents, so evenly tapping into this ridership base is wholly sensible. Also, apart from Columbia, 116th is a significant through-street in part because it has ramps to and from the FDR.

Overall, I really don't get what you're driving at here.

116th is the "main street" of East (Spanish) Harlem as well.

I agree that 116th Street at Second Avenue bears having a station here - it's that far East of Lexington as to not be redundant. As a veteran of the lexington Avenue Line, I too can testify that the crowding on those trains is sometimes obscene.

Just to put this in historical perspective -- There used to be *two* rapid transit lines parallel and east of Lexington.

railfan365 wrote:I agree that 116th Street at Second Avenue bears having a station here - it's that far East of Lexington as to not be redundant. As a veteran of the lexington Avenue Line, I too can testify that the crowding on those trains is sometimes obscene.

To clarify, yes I know the weekend insanity known as the Lexington. I can't stand going up to 125th Street to pick up friends at certain times then having to back downtown since we know the 4 & 6 will be packed.

The plans for the Second Avenue subway in the 1960s-70s didn't have a 116th Street station. There was supposed to be station near Taino Towers, around 120th Street, and I remember it was called (at least in materials released to the press) "Triboro Plaza Station." That would have been the last station in Manhattan, and the route then continued into the Bronx.

If Metro-North ever does use the West Side line, there will probably never be a station in Washington Heights because the line runs through Riverside Park at the bottom of a steep bluff. 125th Street is one of the few places where the line connects with the street grid.

This probably explains why the section of tunnel that already exists between 110th and 120th doesn't have provisoin for a station.

Non-sequitor: I stillt think that 2 things were foolish: 1. That Phase I of the SAS doesn't include building the planned station for 106th Street and activating the exising section of tunnel between 110th and 120th , at least for car storage, since tsuch a station will more or less fill in the space between that tunnel and the section between 9th and 105th.; and 2. That the existing station at Lexington/63rd has a wall on each platform that hides the tracks to/from Broadway, and doesn't have entry/exit at Third Avenue. the bellmouths in the tunnel east of the station indicate that 63rd Street tunnel was otherwise built with an awareness that the eventual connection to a second avenue subway might actually happen, and now modification of that station will be adding to the cost of such a thing.

The 63rd Street station is supposed to get a Third Avenue entrance added as part of the overall Second Avenue project. I think the two additional tracks will also be installed, which will require the existed walls to be torn out. I don't know when all of this is supposed to be done, but presumably the plan is to finish it by the time the first Second Avenue segment opens (maybe 2017?).

Yes, it would have been good if the 106th Street station was part of Phase I. In fact, I wish all of Phase II had some kind of priority. But the MTA's finances are tight and probably will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

63/Lexington does have provisions already built for the 3rd Avenue exit. the stairs are there, and the openings for the escalators, and I think an elevator as well. I was in there once years ago, before 9/11. IIRC there are even stairs to the street that end at concrete, the bottom of the sidewalk. The track is there, only the walls on the platform will need to be removed, and that half of the station finished.

railfan365 wrote:This probably explains why the section of tunnel that already exists between 110th and 120th doesn't have provisoin for a station.

Non-sequitor: I stillt think that 2 things were foolish: 1. That Phase I of the SAS doesn't include building the planned station for 106th Street and activating the exising section of tunnel between 110th and 120th , at least for car storage, since tsuch a station will more or less fill in the space between that tunnel and the section between 9th and 105th.; and 2. That the existing station at Lexington/63rd has a wall on each platform that hides the tracks to/from Broadway, and doesn't have entry/exit at Third Avenue. the bellmouths in the tunnel east of the station indicate that 63rd Street tunnel was otherwise built with an awareness that the eventual connection to a second avenue subway might actually happen, and now modification of that station will be adding to the cost of such a thing.

I agree. Phase 1 should be more than just the three stations already planned, especially since there are two existing sections of tunnel north of 96th Street. But the biggest expense will be the stations and I believe that's why the MTA divided up the project the way it did by having Phase 1 end with the 96th Street station. Inexplicably, the MTA seems to be taking the conservative route for what they intend to build in Phases 1 and 2. Yet Phases 3 and 4 are significantly longer. Phase 3 extends from 63rd to Houston Street which is as long as Phases 1 and 2 combined and Phase 4 is everything south of Houston and includes tunneling under the existing Brooklyn-bound subway tunnels.

116th absolutely, positively needs this stop. Leaving aside its status as East Harlem's main drag -- and the fact that the island is a good block wider here than at 96th Street, Manhattan's only Costco and Target are located down at the east end of 116th.

Roadgeek Adam wrote:To clarify, yes I know the weekend insanity known as the Lexington.

Weekend? Try any day...

#5 - Dyre Ave wrote: Inexplicably, the MTA seems to be taking the conservative route for what they intend to build in Phases 1 and 2. Yet Phases 3 and 4 are significantly longer. Phase 3 extends from 63rd to Houston Street which is as long as Phases 1 and 2 combined and Phase 4 is everything south of Houston and includes tunneling under the existing Brooklyn-bound subway tunnels.

Remember that the MTA didn't really want to include phases 3 and 4 in the plan at all and did so only under community pressure. I think they're not nearly as well thought-out as phases 1 and 2, and I suspect if the funding comes up they'll be rephased and the EIRs will be amended.

And with Columbia expanding as they are supposed to, I would not be surprised if (either as part of Phase 2 or as a Phase 2a) the 96th-125th Street portion were to be expanded to include going all the way across 125th (with transfers at all stations along the way), ending on a low elevated platform under the 1 at Broadway-12th Avenue (with a portal after St. Nicholas Avenue).